Wednesday, September 07, 2016

The film was referred to by 'The New York Times' as "one of the first close-up view of the motives and personalities in a group that rarely opens up to outsiders."

Syracuse University has passed over formally inviting Israeli film director Shimon Dotan to their international film conference "The Place of Religion in Film." Dotan had previously been informally invited by one of the events organizers, William L. Blizek, according to The Atlantic.

The film Dotan was due to show at the March 2017 conference was his feature-length documentary 'The Settlers' which chronicles the history of the settlements, the people who live there and the movement as a whole.

The film itself was referred to by The New York Times as "one of the first close-up views of the motives and personalities in a group that rarely opens up to outsiders."

It was shown at the Sundance Film Festival (and was made with financial support from the Israeli network YES and from the European network ARTE, among others) and opened throughout Israel recently.

However, despite an invitation, and interest on the part of the filmmaker Dotan, he was uninvited to the event due to the "BDS faction on campus."

The Syracuse University BDS faction made no known statements or threats to Dotan's possible participation and were perhaps unaware of it all together.

A rejection email Dotan received from Professor Hamner of the Religion Department of Syracuse University stated that the group would make things unpleasant for the Israeli filmmaker and possibly damage the reputation and credibility of the organizers and the event.

The email added that they regretted not having the opportunity to see the film and as such they could not vouch for it.

The film has been highly rated among critics. It mainly focuses on the radical fringe settlers and, according to reviews, is perceived as showing settlers in a negative light.

Dotan said he wants people to understand the reality, in all its complexity. “I don’t think Israel faces a military threat, but I think it does face the threat of disintegration from within... I think there is a threat to democracy and to the moral fabric of the country... I want the film to present a dialogue with the settlers in a way that will enlighten people.”

The very organizations attempting to achieve good PR by being ultra sensitive to political correctness risk terrible PR when they take their PC efforts too far

This weekend the annual JavaScript conference Nodevember became the most recent participant in the political correctness (PC) wars when it un-invited keynote speaker Douglas Crockford, renowned for his involvement in advances to the modern web and the JavaScript programming language, from its upcoming November event. What it means for PR: The very organizations attempting to achieve good PR by being ultra sensitive to political correctness risk terrible PR when they take their PC efforts too far.

For example, a 2015 debate about campus sexual assault at Brown University led some women on campus to fear the dialogue would trigger civil rights warnings to a degree that at the University’s guidance, attendees “who might find the debate upsetting” were provided with “a safe space room” equipped with “cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies,” as reported by the New York Times.

A report by ListVerse noted that the National Union of Students Women’s Campaign, a feminist college student group in Britain announced in March 2015 they would ban clapping at their future conferences held at UK colleges, claiming that the act of clapping could “trigger some people’s anxiety,” and therefore should be banned from all conferences. Instead, feminist students instructed those who attend conferences to use “jazz hands”—silently waving their hands in the air—when they wished to display their approval.

Good intentions aside, these moves are extreme enough to open the risk of horrific PR. From appearances, Nodevember is experiencing this PR backlash today. By its policy and definition, Nodevember purports to be highly committed to “providing a harassment-free conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race or religion.” The “short version” of the event’s code of ethics advises participants to “be kind to each other. Do not insult or put down other attendees. Behave professionally. Remember that harassment and sexist, racist or exclusionary jokes are not appropriate for Nodevember.”

This sentiment was fine and good until organizers decided this weekend, just eight hours after announcing the event’s four keynotes on Sept. 1, to publically uninvite the first keynote listed in an unceremonious Tweet: “We will also be removing Douglas Crockford from our keynote speakers list to help make the conference a comfortable environment for all.”

The very organizations attempting to achieve good PR by being ultra sensitive to political correctness risk terrible PR when they take their PC efforts too far.What happened? The organization has not disclosed details beyond the statement, which noted vaguely that “almost none” of the many things said about the decision “reflected the many facets” but acknowledged the un-invite Tweet “lacked nuance and could have been posed in a much better way.” In an attempt to trace the steps, blogger and programmer Paul Straw researched the chain of events, which appeared to have begun with a Tweet from @jsdnxx: “nice list of dude programmers, notice any omissions?” After a bit of back and forth about the issue of diversity among speakers and how to amend it, user Emily Rose piped in with “@nodevember, one way you could show you actually care about community safety & diversity is by uninviting Douglas Crockford. @nodevember he has repeatedly shown himself to be actively hostile to inclusivity and many will decline to speak if he is invited.”

No examples were named. Research of Crockford’s prior speeches, however, produced video of a 2013 presentation at Google GOOGL +0.68% titled “Monads and Gonads.” The presentation makes its points with the inclusion of what we could fairly refer to as “programmer humor.” It was a strained metaphor that was admittedly not very funny. In the course of the 39 minutes presentation it made humorous reference to the metaphor of testicles at least two and possibly three times (if you include the use of the term “gonads,” which in actuality could refer to male or female organs, but is decidedly not PC either way). In another presentation, findable through posts such as this Medium article on “Why I won’t present with Doug Crockford,” the author says Crockford “slut shamed” an audience by describing the “Old Web” that was beautiful because of its promiscuity, and then noting that some cases, such as financial transactions, are better served “by a committed relationship.”

Straw attempted to reach Crockford to obtain more detail about what had happened, from his point of view. Crockford’s cryptic response: “It is a mystery to me too.” It appears in this situation that everyone loses, on all fronts. Could PC and policy concerns have been better handled by speaking to the the party in question in advance to ensure crowd and event-appropriate sensitivity? I believe the answer is an obvious “yes”.

Before enacting ultra PC policies, organizations, companies and groups should ask themselves these hard questions: Do these actions reflect our honorable intentions? Or have our reactions swung so far we are risking the very things we want to avoid? (Offended participants and horrific PR.) In my opinion it is vital that organizers and organizations make a greater effort to think these issues through in advance, before public shamings or the creation of knee-jerk policy change.

Canadian columnist Gordon Clark discusses the pros and cons of being politically correct, referencing new Angus Reid poll results

My mother called me last month for advice about an assignment she was struggling with for her writers’ group about stereotypes. I suggested an idea that has clattered about in my head for years: Why is it OK to point out positive stereotypes about groups of people but not negative ones?

Why, for instance, is it OK to say that the Chinese tend to be family oriented, pro-education and hardworking but it’s wrong to suggest, as many do, that some Chinese immigrants don’t make enough effort to integrate into Canadian society? It’s just one example — you can come up with examples for any group.

Whether you are stating a positive or negative claim about a group, you are making a generalization, even if there is truth to your observations. Why is one OK but not the other?

My only answer to why it’s inoffensive to make positive generalizations but you may come across as a jerk or worse, a bigot, if you point out negative traits is that it comes down to what others perceive to be in your heart. If you say nice things, you’re a friend. Say something bad, you might be an enemy, even if you’re making a reasonable point or trying to have a civil discussion about a difficult subject.

It also explains why if you call Scottish people “cheap,” most Scots don’t take offence — they might even agree, as they see being frugal as a positive thing. Say it about Jews, there is a good chance you’re anti-Semitic. It’s also why it’s OK for groups to crack jokes about negative aspects of their own cultures but less acceptable for outsiders to do it, or why blacks can use the N-word but not others.

It’s the motive behind stating a stereotype that’s key — whether there is oppression in your comments. For the most part, Canadians don’t wish to give offence.

So I wasn’t surprised by the findings of a new Angus Reid poll on political correctness that found that nearly nine in 10 Canadians “say they’re being polite, rather than trying to avoid judgment” when they self-censor when dealing with sensitive topics.

That doesn’t mean they don’t hold what some would consider “politically incorrect” thoughts. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents said there are certain things you “just shouldn’t express in front or people you don’t know” while 80 per cent said it “seems like you can’t say anything” without offending someone these days, according to the poll released Monday.

The data suggest many Canadians hold views they believe would get them in trouble if they said them out loud even if they “are sympathetic to the value of following certain PC values,” as the pollsters found.

Sixty-seven per cent of Canadians said “too many people are easily offended over the language of others, including 71 per cent of men and 62 per cent of women. Remarkably, given that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is running an anti-PC campaign, that’s higher than the 59 per cent of Americans who agree with the statement.

It should surprise no one that just 21 per cent of Conservatives “say people need to be more careful with their choice of words” compared to Liberals (40 per cent) and New Democrats (38 per cent).

Oddly, young people aged 18 to 34 were most likely to agree that “too many people are too easily offended these days over the language others use” while being least likely to agree that “political correctness has gone too far.” Sixty-seven per cent of them agreed to the second statement compared to 82 per cent of Canadians 55 and older. That strikes me as a contradiction. Perhaps it means that young people have been better indoctrinated by educators to hold PC views but aren’t as polite as older Canadians.

Personally, I’m encouraged that people are being more mindful about using inclusive language when discussing others — I’m Canadian, after all, and don’t see any point in giving unnecessary offence. But we can’t allow the PC thought police to dictate how we express ourselves or to casually level unfounded charges of racism, sexism or other “isms” as a strategy to control the discussion of difficult subjects. Nothing good is gained in limiting debate. Besides, despite what too many people claim these days, no one has the right not to be offended some times. It’s one of the prices of free speech.

In the wake of the surprising death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia this past February, there was much concern among conservatives as to the possibility and even probability that the balance of the court would swing to the Left, since Barack Obama was in position to appoint his replacement — he nominated Merrick Garland, a reliable leftist. The GOP Senate for once quickly rejected the notion that a lame duck president would be allowed to so impact the High Court’s balance mere months before his presidency was to end. But would the GOP that had so often promised to stand up to Obama only to wilt under the heat of the critical Leftmedia do so again this time?

So far the answer is an encouraging “no.” With most of the media’s attention focused on presidential polls, it might be easy to miss the fact that the Senate GOP has stuck to its commitment. The Senate broke for summer recess in July, but the GOP has maintained a pro forma session. Twice a week a single law maker gavels the Senate into session, reads a brief announcement and sets the next meeting time. It takes all of 30 seconds.

In other words, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Co. have been practicing a bit of political gamesmanship. As McConnell’s spokesman Don Stewart said, “This will ensure there’s no recess appointment of the president’s nominee. The Supreme Court has our back on that one.” Conservatives have a rather unusual source to thank for the tactic currently being employed by the GOP. After all, it was then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who crafted and implemented this same strategy against George W. Bush. In any case, the future of the Supreme Court is far too critical to entrust to either Obama or his chosen successor, Hillary Clinton.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

A face of Leftist hate: Cory Booker, (D-NJ)

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

A good thought from Thomas Sowell: "The phrase "glass ceiling" is an insult to our intelligence. What does glass mean, except that we cannot see it? In other words, in the absence of evidence, we are expected to go along with what is said because it is said in accusatory and self-righteous tones."

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they (under the chairmanship of Ulric Neisser) have had to concede a large gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ.

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

'White Privilege'. .. Oh yes. .. That was abundant in the Irish potato famines. ... And in the Scottish Highland Clearances. ...And in transportations to Australia. ... And in Workhouses. ... 'White privilege' was absolutely RIFE!

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

"In the end every feminism ends up being a machismo with a skirt" -- Pope Francis, February 23, 2019

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about the transexual craze: The male-female distinction is the only innate human distinction God cares about: “God created mankind in his own image . . . male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). “He created them male and female and blessed them” (Genesis 5:2). No ethnic or racial distinction matters in Genesis, only the male-female distinction.

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties. The tide turned in 2017, however, with a public vote authorizing homosexual marriage in Australia

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here